Adrianne Rich's "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" was not an easy read by no means but the author's message behind it all is actually very simple. She wanted to prove, without a shadow of a doubt that women didn't always have to fall in love with a man. She wanted to show that some women actually attracted to other women and coincidentally not all men are attracted to women.
Rich's writings that in our culture, heterosexuality is a 'compulsory' action can be connected to the princess arguments that we covered in class on Wednesday. The traditional Disney Princesses always fall in love with a very handsome and(most of the time) wealthy Prince. There has never been a Princess that fell in love with another enchanted Princess. It's almost unthinkable. I actually don't think I will ever see that happen in my lifetime. It would be realistic and gay marriage is seemingly more and more accepted everyday but it will never be show in a movie or television show by a family oriented company.
You may find yourself asking: Why? Why won't somebody make something like that? Don't you think it's about time that these people wake up and smell the coffee? I know I have. Rich makes the point that our culture "demands heterosexuality" and "women's choice of women as passionate comrades, life partners, co-workers, lovers, community, has been crushed, invalidated and forced into hiding." It's a shame that Rich wrote that line in 1980 and it is still meaningful and valid to this day.
Discussion points for class:
Did anyone else make these same connections or am I going out on a limb here? Did anyone else have a very hard time reading this? I felt at times like I was going back to pre-kindergarten and learning to read for the first time again. I also was wondering if anybody else found any other connections to other class discussions. Here's some helpful background info on Rich and the article we read.